Immigration reform ignored in key House race

AURORA, Colo. – It was supposed to be here, in these diverse Denver suburbs, that the nation’s fiery immigration debate would dominate a competitive House race.

The immigrant population is booming, evidenced by the more than 100 languages spoken at public schools here, the line of foreign flags displayed in the main atrium at City Hall and the bustling Latin and Korean restaurants that line the streets.

Text Size

-

+

reset

But the immigration debate that’s raging in Washington is almost an afterthought in the tight battle between Mike Coffman and Andrew Romanoff. Though they agree on almost nothing, Coffman, the incumbent Republican, and Romanoff, his Democratic challenger, scoff at the national narrative that the sixth congressional district will be won and lost on the issue of immigration reform.

And it’s not just them. Their aides privately admit it, as do consultants in both Washington and Denver who opened the campaign fully expecting the race to hinge on immigration reform. Community leaders say voters are far more focused on other issues. Even immigration activists reluctantly concede it’s not the salient topic they hoped it would be.

The shrug isn’t limited to Colorado. Less than three months before the midterm elections, there’s virtually no competitive House race that’s animated by a debate over immigration. That’s a dramatic shift from the 2012 election when Republican leaders, stung by Mitt Romney’s defeat, looked to some type of immigration reform as a way to make inroads with the Latino community. Other factors – ranging from Obamacare to unease about the economy and the president’s sagging popularity – are far bigger issues this cycle.

“The national narrative’s wrong,” said Floyd Ciruli, a independent pollster here and a longtime observer of Colorado politics.

For most voters, he said, immigration is the sixth or seventh most important issue.

“It definitely doesn’t show up in any surveys as a big issue for the right or left,” he said. “Obviously, you have segments. But it just is not at the top of mind.”

That does not seem likely to change anytime soon.

The airwaves aren’t packed with ads slamming Coffman for his vacillations on migrant rights, or hitting Romanoff for passing tough immigration laws when he was statehouse speaker. Almost $8 million of television has been reserved for the final weeks before Election Day, but several sources familiar with both parties’ strategy either say they don’t expect to run spots on immigration, or haven’t yet decided whether it’s a good use of their time and money.

Even outside groups are being cautious. FWD.us, the pro-immigration reform group founded by Silicon Valley stalwarts, does not expect to run advertisements in this race, according to a source familiar with their strategy.

Internal, closely held polls demonstrate just how little voters here care about immigration reform. The sixth district surveys, described to POLITICO by multiple sources, show that the issue is not motivating either party’s voters to get to the ballot box. Republicans privately say voters are moved by dissatisfaction with Obamacare and a stagnant economy. They are working hard to paint Romanoff as a “slick” politician who will do anything to win election, while positioning Coffman as a workhorse.

Meanwhile, Democratic internal polls show that this race will be won on economic fairness, the price of college, the social safety net and Coffman’s views on women’s issues. Romanoff is trying to cut away on Coffman’s widespread - but soft - support, while showing that he’s a better alternative to represent the district.

Both candidates freely admit that immigration policy simply isn’t at the forefront of the race in a district that has more than 110,000 Mexicans and tens of thousands of Africans and Asians.

In an interview in Romanoff’s wood-paneled campaign office, just around the corner from Coffman’s headquarters, the Democrat said immigration is “a big issue, it’s not the only issue.” Asked what the top issues are, Romanoff said making higher education more affordable, raising the minimum wage, pay equity and moving toward a “clean energy economy.”

Some of his supporters seem to agree. During an hour-long business roundtable in Aurora, immigration reform didn’t come up for 40 minutes. Instead, Obamacare, the difficulty of contracting with the government and banking regulations were among the group’s concerns. When immigration reform did come up, many of the attendees agreed it was necessary, and some nodded when one participant said the U.S. should charge a hefty fee to allow immigrants into the country.

In an interview before an event honoring the South Korean community, Coffman echoed Romanoff’s sentiment, saying, “I think immigration is really important, but no, I don’t think that the race is any way a referendum on immigration reform.”

“Not to say that it’s not important, but the race in no way hinges on that,” Coffman said.